i’ve moved

Hi there! I’ll be blogging here from now on. Thanks! ♥

A question of ethics, not intelligence

At Pharyngula, in a discussion of today’s debate between Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair (on the question of whether or not religion is a force for good), PZ argues that Blair’s conversion to Catholicism is “an act that clearly marks him as mentally deficient”. 

No, I don’t think that Blair’s conversion to Catholicism marks him as mentally deficient. Obviously, many Catholics are very intelligent, intellectual, and/or highly educated individuals. An individual’s Catholic beliefs, whether long-held or recently adopted, don’t negate their intelligence. Yes, such individuals are engaging in a great deal of cognitive dissonance and have somehow managed to keep their baseless beliefs tucked away, hidden and protected from the part of their brain that is intelligent and inquisitive (for, as we know, such beliefs fall apart like a house of cards when subjected to even the mildest intellectual/rational inquiry), and I find that to be both frustrating and intellectually dishonest. However, that’s not the issue here. 

No, this is an issue of moral and ethical integrity, not one of intelligence. Choosing to remain a member of and to support an institution that is as backwards, unethical, bigoted, and dangerous as the Catholic church marks one as, to varying degrees, ethically questionable, not mentally deficient. And to bring it back to Blair, I’d argue that choosing, as an adult, to become a member of the Church, marks one as much more ethically questionable than an individual who was raised Catholic and never managed to escape their childhood religious indoctrination. 

I think it’s very important to keep this distinction in mind when discussing Catholics/Catholicism: Catholic beliefs certainly aren’t an automatic and/or obvious indicator of mental deficiency or low intelligence, but choosing to remain a member of such a corrupt and dangerous institution does indicate that one is ethically questionable, at the very least.

There’s nothing to debate

This is currently one of the top stories on Yahoo News:

“APNewsBreak: Pope seeks debate on condoms and AIDS”

From it (emphasis mine):

A Vatican insider says Pope Benedict XVI is seeking to “kick-start a debate” with his suggestion that using condoms could be acceptable in some cases as a means of fighting AIDS.

Benedict said in an interview that for some people, such as male prostitutes, using condoms could show moral responsibility because the intent is to reduce infection. Theologians have long been studying the possibility of condoning such limited condom use as a lesser evil.

For anyone who possesses even the tiniest shred of empathy, for anyone who prioritizes human life over baseless and self-serving dogma, and for anyone who has a basic understanding of and/or respect for science, there is nothing to debate.

And let’s neither kid ourselves nor give praise where no praise is due: if the Church really wanted to make progress on this issue, they would stop manufacturing controversies, stop the pointless theological “studies” about the “evil” of condom use, and start working towards remedying the very real damage that has been caused by their backwards, dangerous, and often lethal policies.